All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on each part of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Defendant B, on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A escaped from the scene of the accident with intent to commit a crime of escape, and aided and abetting Defendant B to commit a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death resulting from Dangerous Driving) by Defendant A and the Road Traffic Act

The part of aiding and abetting each crime is found not guilty on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that there was a criminal intent to commit such aiding and abetting.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor are different from this case, and thus it is inappropriate to invoke this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.